Agreed. And that is what is required to truly move the sport beyond the shadow of the Armstrong/EPO era.
I think that's probably true in part. I think perhaps the most significant crime here is denying others of success. How would you feel if you'd just missed out on a major win to this guy? ...a lifetime regret I suspect.

but I thought everyone who placed 2nd to his wins has also testedve at some point?
Exactly. It seems like for many years the whole sport was rife with drug cheats.
Yeah your right, never realised it was quite that bad...
This makes interesting reading...
Lance Armstrong doping scandal: Everyone was cheating from 1999 to 2005.

Not everyone. And they were the one's denied success and all that goes with it. And if you were clean and spoke out - being the patron, Armstrong would put you in your place.
When Armstrong is officially stripped of his titles nobody will be promoted to winner.
Yup.And now that they they know what they are looking for, when it was done and how, getting the "scientific" proof from all the retained samples will be easy.
Won't it?
No.
The UCI assert that only they have the right to examine samples. Had the case gone to a hearing, the USADA would have applied to the panel to permit the use of this evidence but as we all know it didn't got to a hearing because Lance "quitting lasts forever" Armstrong threw in the towel and declined to defend himself.
In the report the USADA go on to say they would have proceeded confidently to hearing without using this evidence because the other evidence is so strong anyway. They're right, it is.
USADA asked the UCI for the 'abnormal' 2001 Tour De Suisse sample. The UCI refused because they say Armstrong did not give his consent to release it. Crazy.
Retrospective analysis has already demonstrated that several of Armstrong's urine samples from the 1999 Tour contained EPO.